IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.
U. R. Kantharaju S/o Sri Ramanna - Appellant
Vs.
State by Mandya Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 199 OF 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 2089 of 2016
Decided On : 30-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
These two appeals have arisen from judgments dated 22.11.2016 in two sessions cases, S.C.53/1999 and S.C.19/2014 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The appellants in Crl.A.2089/2016 faced trial in S.C. 53/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 IPC and have stood convicted and sentenced for those offences. The appellant in Crl.A.199/2017 has questioned the correctness of judgment in S.C.19/2014 acquitting accused no.2 of the offence under section 307 of IPC.
2. The case projected in S.C.53/1999 was, three brothers namely Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were transporting harvested sugarcane in a bullock cart. When the cart came near the land of Ganesh (DW3), Ramaiah, the deceased in this case stopped the cart, took objection for driving the bullock cart through his land and questioned Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu about it. At that time the three brothers assaulted Ramaiah with weapons such as a pickaxe and a chopper. When Prakasha, the nephew of Ramaiah interfered for the rescue of his uncle i.e., Ramaiah, Kantharaju and Chandru assaulted him. Ramaiah was first taken to District Hospital, Mandya. On the advice of doctors, when he was being shifted to Nimhans, Bengaluru, he died. Prakasha sustained grievous injury. On the basis of a report made by Rathnamma, the wife of the deceased, FIR was registered in Cr.No.271/1998 and after investigation, Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307 read with section 34 IPC.
3. S.C.No.19/2014 also relates to the same incident. Report given by Kantharaju was registered in Cr.No.270/1998. He complained to the police that his two brothers viz., Chandru and Siddaramu had been to the land to transport the harvested sugarcane to the Alemane (jaggery factory) in the morning of 19.10.1998. Since they did not return from the land for quite a long time, he went towards the land with his labourer Siddaraju on a scooter. On the way he saw Ramaiah and Prakasha having stopped the bullock cart and questioning his brothers as to why they brought the bullock cart passing through his land. In that course Ramaiah pulled out Chandru from the cart and then tried to assault him with a machete. Seeing this Kantharaju interfered to his brother’s rescue, and at that time Ramaiah gave a blow on his forehead and right cheek. When Siddaramu rushed to his rescue, Ramaiah assaulted him with the same machete on his chest and left forearm. The labourer Siddaraju interfered to pacify the situation. Kantharaju took his brother Siddaramu to the hospital at Mandya. While they were in Mandya, they received information from Krishnegowda and Nagaraju that the supporters of Ramaiah had set fire to their sugarcane fields and the Alemane.
4. Pertaining to Crime No.270/1998, the police filed ‘B’ report after investigation. Therefore Kantharaju filed a protest petition to the ‘B’ report. After holding an enquiry on the protest petition the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and secured the presence of Prakasha by issuing process. He committed the case to Sessions Court where it was registered as S.C.No.19/2014.
5. Two cases having arisen from the same incident, were tried by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. In S.C.No.53/1999 Kantharaju, Chandru and Siddaramu were arrayed as accused 1 to 3 respectively. In S.C.No.19/2014 Prakasha faced trial as accused no.2.
6. In S.C.No.53/1999 the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, PWs1 to 18 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 and the material objects as per MOs1 to 9. The defence also examined three witnesses DWs1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits as per Exs.D1 to 22. After assessing the evidence the trial court held the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of IPC, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the off
Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394
The right of private defense applies when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life, allowing for necessary force in self-defense, as established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and limitation of the right of private defence, leading to the toning down of the charge and acquittal of the accused from certain ....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
(1) A case and counter case arising out of same incident should always be tried by same Court.(2) Right to private defence – Reasonable apprehension of death or genuine apprehension of grievous hurt ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.